Would Mary have aged?

[jimmy]

The Church has never taught that Mary actually died. As for whether or not she aged as we do, we will see when we get there, hopefully. God Bless. Memaw.

Actually yes it does and has. Read about the feast of the dormition, which is the death of Mary. The feast of the dormition has been celebrated for 1500 years.

 

[jimmy]

Originally Posted by Memaw
. The Church has always said that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, Body and Soul

Blue Horizon said;
Correct. But this statement says nothing about them being joined at the bottom - only that they were joined at the top

Blue H, Where ever did you get that idea. She was complete, body and soul, no seperation at any time. You do have some strange ideas. As for the artists, thats a matter of taste, theirs and mine. God Bless, Memaw.

You are wrong to reduce iconography to art. You imply that it is simply an attempt to throw paint on a piece of paper. The iconographer isn’t an ancient Andy Warhol. Iconography was a spiritual practice. It was an expression of faith, not of artistic ability.

Your posts show how dead the western concept of infallibility is and how it is destructive of the faith. You are willing to abandon all that isn’t formally defined, as if formal definition means anything. Consequently, the divinity of Christ wasn’t the teaching of the Church until 325 at the council of Nicaea. The divinity of the Holy Spirit became the teaching of the Church in 381. The Hypostatic union wasn’t the teaching of the Church until 545 at Chalcedon. The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t the teaching of the Church until Trent in the 16th century. Mary wasn’t Immaculately conceived until 1849 I think it was. The question is, what did the early Christians believe? They didn’t believe any of the Marian dogmas or even the Christological doctrines. Jesus could have been God or a god or just a man. He could have risen from the dead or made an illusion of being hung on the cross like muslims like to think or it could just be a fable. There could be two gods, one of the Old Testament and one of the New Testament. Jesus could be just a phantasm.

 

[Memaw]

Actually yes it does and has. Read about the feast of the dormition, which is the death of Mary. The feast of the dormition has been celebrated for 1500 years.

A very knowledgable Jesuit said Dormation means “falling asleep” but does not mean death as we know it where the soul and the body seperate and the body stops to function and starts to decompose. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

You are wrong to reduce iconography to art. You imply that it is simply an attempt to throw paint on a piece of paper. The iconographer isn’t an ancient Andy Warhol. Iconography was a spiritual practice. It was an expression of faith, not of artistic ability.

Your posts show how dead the western concept of infallibility is and how it is destructive of the faith. You are willing to abandon all that isn’t formally defined, as if formal definition means anything. Consequently, the divinity of Christ wasn’t the teaching of the Church until 325 at the council of Nicaea. The divinity of the Holy Spirit became the teaching of the Church in 381. The Hypostatic union wasn’t the teaching of the Church until 545 at Chalcedon. The true presence of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t the teaching of the Church until Trent in the 16th century. Mary wasn’t Immaculately conceived until 1849 I think it was. The question is, what did the early Christians believe? They didn’t believe any of the Marian dogmas or even the Christological doctrines. Jesus could have been God or a god or just a man. He could have risen from the dead or made an illusion of being hung on the cross like muslims like to think or it could just be a fable. There could be two gods, one of the Old Testament and one of the New Testament. Jesus could be just a phantasm.

My, My you do have some very different ideas, but they do not belong to Catholic teaching. Why don’t you ask our Apologists about some of these notions you have? I am sure they could help you better than I. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Memaw if you had the right attitude I would make more of an effort to help you understand Catholic teaching “under the hood” instead of the less than robust “owners guide” summary version you erroneously believe to be the same.

There is a deep need for you to do so than continue in the confident ignorance you demonstrate here. If you are a true truth seeker actually research the question for yourself. I have given you the theologians/doctors to look up. Indeed even quick search on this website will reveal their teaching. Just because you are ignorant of it doesn’t mean it isn’t standard fare or does not exist in plain sight if you just care to actually be humble and look.

I was trained by the Dominicans and have more theology under my belt than most parish priests - not that this fact will make much difference to your hurt pride but I can only offer the unusual background that God has blessed me with to help His Church. Its up to you whether you will run with it.

 

[jimmy]

A very knowledgable Jesuit said Dormation means “falling asleep” but does not mean death as we know it where the soul and the body seperate and the body stops to function and starts to decompose. God Bless, Memaw

Who is this very knowledgeable Jesuit? The word dormition simply means sleep. When applied to Mary it refers to her death. Many very knowledgeable Jesuits have said Mary died.

The use of the phrase ‘death as we know it’ makes the statement so vague that we don’t even know what death means in the context of the conversation. In order to clarify the phrase you would need to specify what distinguishes the dormition from death.

 

[jimmy]

My, My you do have some very different ideas, but they do not belong to Catholic teaching. Why don’t you ask our Apologists about some of these notions you have? I am sure they could help you better than I. God Bless, Memaw

My notions are simply examinations of history. The divinity of Christ wasn’t officially declared until 325, so according to your view it wasn’t the teaching until 325. Until then it was possible that Jesus was God, or a god, or just a man.

 

[Memaw]

Memaw if you had the right attitude I would make more of an effort to help you understand Catholic teaching “under the hood” instead of the less than robust “owners guide” summary version you erroneously believe to be the same.

There is a deep need for you to do so than continue in the confident ignorance you demonstrate here. If you are a true truth seeker actually research the question for yourself. I have given you the theologians/doctors to look up. Indeed even quick search on this website will reveal their teaching. Just because you are ignorant of it doesn’t mean it isn’t standard fare or does not exist in plain sight if you just care to actually be humble and look.

I was trained by the Dominicans and have more theology under my belt than most parish priests - not that this fact will make much difference to your hurt pride but I can only offer the unusual background that God has blessed me with to help His Church. Its up to you whether you will run with it.

Sorry to disapoint you but my pride is not hurt in the least, Name calling doesn’t bother me either. I am confident in my “confident ignorance” as you call it. You seem pleased with your “unusual background” so I don’t think I will run with it today. Attitude, attitude, let me see, what is the defination of attitude??? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

My notions are simply examinations of history. The divinity of Christ wasn’t officially declared until 325, so according to your view it wasn’t the teaching until 325. Until then it was possible that Jesus was God, or a god, or just a man.

I seem to recall that Jesus said “The Father and I are one” and didn’t the Angel Gabrial tell Mary she was to give birth to the Son of God. There are others.

Believe me, your view is NOT my view. Please don’t put words in my mouth! Please show me where I ever said it wasn’t the teaching until 325. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

Who is this very knowledgeable Jesuit? The word dormition simply means sleep. When applied to Mary it refers to her death. Many very knowledgeable Jesuits have said Mary died.

The use of the phrase ‘death as we know it’ makes the statement so vague that we don’t even know what death means in the context of the conversation. In order to clarify the phrase you would need to specify what distinguishes the dormition from death.

I believe I did just that. Please read my post again, carefully, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Ion]

Who is this very knowledgeable Jesuit? The word dormition simply means sleep. **When applied to Mary it refers to her death. **Many very knowledgeable Jesuits have said Mary died.

The use of the phrase ‘death as we know it’ makes the statement so vague that we don’t even know what death means in the context of the conversation. In order to clarify the phrase you would need to specify what distinguishes the dormition from death.

Nope. Dormition does not mean “her death in a poetical expression” but only what the apostles have seen at her departure.
The orthodox troparion says:“In giving birth you preserved your virginity, / In falling asleep YOU DID NOT FORSAKE THE WORLD, O Theotokos. / You were TRANSLATED to life, O Mother of Life, / And by your prayers, you deliver our souls from death.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Nope. Dormition does not mean “her death in a poetical expression” but only what the apostles have seen at her departure.
The orthodox troparion says:“In giving birth you preserved your virginity, / In falling asleep YOU DID NOT FORSAKE THE WORLD, O Theotokos. / You were TRANSLATED to life, O Mother of Life, / And by your prayers, you deliver our souls from death.”

And yet in very early Dormition iconography Mary’s life-less body was translated supine upwards to heaven by angels while Jesus holds her soul.

That is the very definition of death - separation of soul and body.
Liturgical Icons are worth more than thousands of ambiguous words/interpretations.

However her body did not corrupt even though separated from her soul.
Many confuse this with “not dying.”

 

[Memaw]

And yet in very early Dormition iconography Mary’s life-less body was translated supine upwards to heaven by angels while Jesus holds her soul.

That is the very definition of death - separation of soul and body.
Liturgical Icons are worth more than thousands of ambiguous words/interpretations.

However her body did not corrupt even though separated from her soul.
Many confuse this with “not dying.”

Your right, death means seperation of body and soul. That never happened to Mary. She was Assumed into Heaven, Body AND Soul together. And how do you know they her Body was lifeless??? The Church NEVER stated she died!!!. Like I said before, we will all find out in Eternity. Thats enough for me. God BLess, Memaw

 

[Truth_Faith13]

So it is stated that Mary was assumed to heaven, body and all, because decay of the body is a result of original sin, which Mary was exempt from.
However, decay of the body does not begin at death. Our bodies begin to slow down and decay as we get older, right? So if Mary is exempt from this process, wouldn’t she have basically stayed eternally young?

Another question. If her body would not decay, then she would not die of natural causes. If she didn’t get sick or run into an accident, theoretically she would not die, right? Because dying of natural causes is one our bodies just run down until everything stops working and we die. So if Mary’s body clock would not run down, then isn’t she theoretically immortal?

My science is pretty bad, but it sounds logical to me, since humans were supposed to be without death or age until the fall of Adam and Eve - and if Mary did not have original sin or any of the consequences of that fall, would she not been the same?

I hope I’m not hearing bad theology. I’m kind of new here.

Hehe…I would love you to tell someone of greater years that they are decaying and then watch their response!

The ageing process is completely different to decay which happens AFTER death!

 

[Memaw]

Hehe…I would love you to tell someone of greater years that they are decaying and then watch their response!

The ageing process is completely different to decay which happens AFTER death!

I think we understood the point Butaperson was making. I’m one of those of “greater years” and I am not the spring chicken I once was. I may not be dead yet but I’m sure on the way. As I tell my youngest grandaughter, “My running days are over and so are my climbing trees.” But I did plenty of both when I was young. God Bless, memaw

 

[jimmy]

Nope. Dormition does not mean “her death in a poetical expression” but only what the apostles have seen at her departure.
The orthodox troparion says:“In giving birth you preserved your virginity, / In falling asleep YOU DID NOT FORSAKE THE WORLD, O Theotokos. / You were TRANSLATED to life, O Mother of Life, / And by your prayers, you deliver our souls from death.”

Actually, yes it refers to her death and nothing else and your quote of the Orthodox liturgy doesn’t say otherwise. The tradition has been for 1500 years that she died. You can deny the tradition of the Church, but that is on your shoulders.

 

[jimmy]

A hymn from the Byzantine liturgy says,

In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A hymn from the Byzantine liturgy says,

In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.

Exactly, I thought Ion’s translation below (“In giving birth you preserved your virginity, In falling asleep YOU DID NOT FORSAKE THE WORLD…”) was a somewhat self-serving and biased translation when nothing is so definite at all.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Your right, death means seperation of body and soul. That never happened to Mary.

If you stubbornly hold that Mary certainly did not die then you are simply not a mature Catholic Memaw .
A many have attempted to explain to you the question of her death has never been formally proclaimed either way by the Church. Please supply a clear quote from “Munificentissimus Deus” which has lead you to this strange personal view that it has? If we look at Tradition it is very, very clear where a formal definition would go if one had to be made:

Pope Adrian I: " “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death…” (8th Century)
Pope Pius XII: "In the liturgical books…there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was…in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate…To cite an illustrious example … these words: “…the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death…”(MF 17).
Pope JPII: “Some … maintain that the Blessed Virgin did not die… However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.”

And how do you know they her Body was lifeless???

MeMaw have you ever actually read the Encyclical (“Apostolic Constitution” to be exact) of Pius XII that defined the Dogma of the Assumption ?

Munificentissimus Deus states in black and white:
“The holy Fathers and the great Doctors…presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death…”

If Pius XII says so when announcing the Dogma of the Assumption who are you and I to differ
So we wonder what exactly is the problem for you…
Can you really be so stubborn and unlistening that you will still not agree that both unbroken Tradition and the Popes have always taught that Mary died … simply because it has not been formally defined?
Or, as Jimmy well notes below, do you have to have it personally served to you as a formally defined Dogma before you accept it is the only unbroken Tradition of the Catholic Church since the First Century ?

Mary’s Death is not incompatible with the doctrine of the Assumption.
I think that is your real difficulty, perhaps you do not fully understand what the Assumption doctrine actually means .

Yes Mary is alive and well in body and soul in heaven.
That does NOT mean she could not have died beforehand.
Clearly it is an unbroken Tradition since the year dot proclaimed by the Popes that she did die.

Yes, you may, at the moment, personally believe she did not die.
However you are quite mistaken to believe that:
(a) the Popes agree with you
(b) Mary never dying has been formally defined.
(c) Mary never dying is the traditional Catholic view
(d) Mary never dying was even widely opined before the 17th century.

 

[Ion]

But you did not answer the question, how could they know she was dead?
You say her dead body was not corrupted…the dead body is rather a supposition.